S J C O G, I N C.
555 E. Weber Avenue •Stockton, California 95202
209.235.0600 • 209.235.0438 (fcrY) www.sjcag.org
Anthony Silva
CHAIR
SteveDeBrum October 29, 215
VICE CHAIR
Andrew T. Chesley EXEC°TI°E °~RE~T°R BDCP/WaterFix Comments
Member Agencies PD BOX 1 9 ~ 9 ~1T=ES of Sacramento, Cf1 95812 ESCALON,
LATH ROP,
LOD7~
M ANTECA, R'P°". Re: Bay Delta Conservation Plan/California WaterFix Partially Recirculated Draft STOCKTON,
TRACY, Enviromnental Impact Report/Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement ^ND (RDEIR/SDEIS) Comment Letter Pertaining to SJMSCP THE COUNTY OF
SAN JOAQUIN
Dear BDCP/California WaterFix staff-f:
SJCOG, Lic., as the administrator of the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP), is providing this individual comment letter on the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP)/California WaterFix (CWF) Recirculated RDEIR/SDEIS to place on the official record the project's impacts to the SJMSCP. Concurrently, SJCOG, Inc. echoes the conclusions of tl~e Delta Independent Science Board's (Delta ISB) written response on September 30, 2015 regarding the RDEIR/SDEIS document.
Our correspondence with BDCP/CWF staff indicates all alternatives are still being considered with the new alternative although not included in the RDEIR/SDEIS documents. With that understa~~dinb, SJCOG, Ii~c. is resubinittin~ the prior comment letters associated ~vitl~ prior project alteci~atives from July 25, 2014 to be incorporated into the public record for all alte►•natives still being considered. These letters are provided as attachments.
As to the general and specific comments in the RDEiR/SDEIS, SJCOG, Inc. provides the following comments regarding the spl'►tting of the former BDCP into the CWF and the EcoRestore programs:
General Comments: 1. Although the project has been parsed into two parts, the overall impacts of the two projects to the Delta estuary, the rebion as a whole and the SJMSCP should not be considered as separate but as one entire project.. The project and restoration components 1~Page BDCP/ California WaterFix Recirculated RDEIR/SDEIS — SJCOG, Inc. will have significant, long-term impacts on the ability of the SJMSCP to function and meet the obligations of the existing permits issued by USFWS and CDFW to all signatories of the SJMSCP.
2. The lack of a fully comprehensive and completed Financial Analysis and/or a Cost Benefits Analysis on CWF project clouds whatever benefits the project provides considering no `iiew water' is actually being created.
3. In the near future, EcoRestore will need approximately 30,000 acres for restoration projects. Without a complete understanding of where, how and when the future projects will be done, the effects to the SJMSCP can be devastating in meeting the obligations of the under USFWS and CDFW permits.
4. The restoration plans all seem to be in some way, affiliated with public lands and projects/programs which have been in existence for some time under various public/private restoration endeavors as and seem to be potentially harmful to other programs (e.g. SJMSCP) due to unknown/unidentified areas of where restoration is to occur.
5. The. short window of time for response to the recirculation of the CWF's RDEIR/SDEIS documents for such a massive public works project (e.g. costs at estimated $16 billion and impacts to the Delta estuary across multiple counties). Our agency, no agency, cannot conduct a thorough review and analysis and provide comments on the projects impacts to the SJMSCP.
6. As pointed out by the Delta ISB September 30, 2015 comment letter, the `e ects o California WaterFix extends beyond ~~ate~~ conveyance to habi~crt ~°estoration and levee ~nai~~tenance. These independent issues of statewide impoi~tcrnce warrant an environmental i»~pact c~ssess»~ent that is more complete, comprehensive and comprehensible than the current draft.'
~ecific Comments:
The preferred alternative for the CWF project as a lone project under the Section 7 federal process and Section 2081 state process does minimize the overall acreage of impacts with regards to the SJMSCP but still has multiple concerns to the county-wide plan.
1. The CWF will still require mitigation to be conducted within the SJMSCP permit area of up to 6,100 acres of land. This number seems small in comparison to the prior mitigation in the BDCP, however, the project and restoration of 6,100 acres can make up almost 10% of the needed agricultural lands above mean sea level for the SJMSCP in the overlap areas.
2~Page BDCP/ California WaterFix Recirculated RDEIR/SDEIS — SJCOG, Inc. i. Since the CWF does not have any constraints with mean sea level acquisition requirements, all lands for mitigation (e.g. swainson's hawk) should be considered for those lands below sea level.
2. For existing preserves and protected lands within San Joaquin County, the alignment of the preferred alternative may be below ground but will still have impacts to some existing preserve lands for protected species (e.g. sandhill crane, swainson's hawks, egrets, etc.) along New Hope Tract and Staten Island.
a. The alignment of the tunnels will be encroaching on lands within San Joaquin County identified as `Known' giant garter snake habitat causing an issue for the proliferation of the specie. Federal/state take permits allow take to occur, however, SJMSCP does not allow take within identified areas (attached map). The specific tracts of land identified at the beginning ofthe SJMSCP permit term in 2001 were noted as "Known Occupied" but. those tracts do not include the most recent research and sightings of the GGS specie to the west and south within SJ County. The excerpt of Section 5.2.4.8 of the SJMSCP describing the "Known Occupied" areas under the SJMSCP is provided below:
5.2.4.8 Giant Garter Snake Full avoidance of giant gaYter snake known occupied habitat is required in compliance with Section 5.5.9 (C)for the following SJMSCP Covered Activities with the potential to adversely a,ffect the GGS and which have not been mapped.• golf courses; religious assembly; communications services;funeral; internment services; public services -police,fire and similar; projects impacting channel or tule island habitat; major impact projects including landfills, hazardous waste facilities, correctional institutions and similar major impact projects; recreational trails and campgrounds, recreational outdoors sports clubs; utility services, museums and similar facilities. Known occupied habitatfor the giant garter snake is that area west ofI-5 on Terminous Ti^act, Shin Kee Tract, White Slough Wildlife Area, and Rio Blanco Tract. New sites identified during the life of the SJMSCP as confirmed habitat sites for the giant garter snake shall be considered known occupied sitesfor the purposes ofthis section.
3. The CWF document is ambiguous regarding the potential mitigation and restoration associated with the current preferred alternative impacts. As noted in prior documents and continued with this recent released draft document, the project alternative does not provide enough detail (e.g. ratios, timing, location, restoration plans, etc.) or evaluate the near/long term effects of those requirements on the Delta as a whole, the farming community, local economies and other habitat program restoration within the overlap the project area.
4. This RDEIR/SDEIS document continues to fail, as with the prior released draft documents, in being clear, concise and detailed with the project relating to the adaptive management, collaborative science based decision making, levees coupled with the 3~Page BDCP/ California WaterFix Recirculated RDEIR/SDEIS — SJCOG, Inc. project operations/maintenance, climate change over the longer term on the Delta because of the preferred alternative, and mitigation/restoration in the broader context of the Delta.
Our staff looks forward to working with the BDCP/California WaterFix staff and consultants on the continued development of the BDCP document and BDCP final EIR/EIS (and accompanying documents) to insure a greater likelihood that the BDCP and SJMSCP will be complimentary to each other rather than conflicting.
Please feel free to contact myself or Steven Mayo, Program Manager, on my staff with any comments, concerns or additional needed information regarding the SJMSCP and the continued work on behalf of the county-wide habitat plan in San Joaquin County.
Sincerely,
STEVE DIAL Deputy Executive Director /Chief Financial Officer
Cc: [email protected] Josh Emery, United States Fish and Wildlife Service Kursten Sheridan and Robert Stanley, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Kathy Miller, San Joaquin County Board of Supervisor and Delta Coalition Chair
Attachments: 1. SJCOG, Inc. Letters from July 25, 2014 a. BDCP draft EIR/EIS Comments b. BDCP Public Draft Comments c. BDCP Draft IA Comments 2. SJMSCP GGS Known Occupied Tracts Map
4~Page BDCP/ California WaterFix Recirculated RDEIR/SDEIS — S1COG, Inc. SSS E. ll%ber AUer~rre • Stncktai, Califor~rirr 95202
209.235.0000 • 209.235.0 38 (fns) "~~~ ruruiu.sjco~ag
Strt~e Dresser ~~~~~R July 25, 2014 .~,7do„y srt~~ VICE CH.\IR ~„~a~r,~ r ct,~~r~~. BDCP Comments exr:co~rivr: DIItCC7'OR Ryan Wulff, NMFS Mc»rGerAgcucies 650 Capitol Mall, Suite 5-100 Sacramento, CA 95814 "'~'~`~SCA40N, °`
1.AT l i It O 1', LU U 1, \IANTf?C.t. R,,,~~, Re: BDCP Draft Environmental Impact Report/Enviroiunental Impact Shady (EIR/ETS) ST°°"'~°N, Comment Letter Pertaining to SJMSCP TRdCY, 1.\' D
I'IIL COUVTI' OF
sex Io.~tZuix Dear Mr. Wulff:
SJCOG, Inc. is the administrator of the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP), Our staff has continuously been involved with the evolution of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) since the inception. In addition to this individual comment letter on the BDCP Draft EIIZ/EIS, SJCOG, Inc., in conjunction with other Delta Initiative Coalition stakeholders, is submitting a separately transmitted joint comment letters. As reference, our agency also concurs with the issues raised in the `Friends of the River' letter dated May 15, 2014 regarding the extension the comment period due to the failure to release the draft Implementation Agreement(IA).
We identified issues in the prior releases of the BDCP draft document which were again not fully addressed in those specific BDCP document sections nor in this BDCP Draft EIR/EIS. The continued concerns with the BDCP and this Draft EIR/EIS are very similar to those our agency has voiced previously to BDCP staff regarding overlapping parts of San Joaquin County covered by the SJMSCP. They are:
• The unforeseen impacts to the SJMSCP with regards to the federal and state permits being implemented under the existing SJMSCP to balance development and protection of species within San Joaquin County which the BDCP draft EIR/EIS does not fully addressed.
1~Page BDCP draft EIR/EIS — SJCOG, Inc. • Certain proposed activities and oversight of the BDCP, such as the types and extent of restoration in the Delta which may have a negative impact on existing preserves and our ability to acquire firture preserves within San Joaquin Cowity.
• The future impacts by the BDCP requiring excessive administrative time and costs to the SJMSCP to provide the vast amount of coordination and information to minimize the potential devastating effects to the existing habitat plan.
A further concern our staff had after review of the Draft EIR/EIS is all the Delta counties which have or are developing HCPs or NCCPs approved or to be approved by federal and state regulatory agencies are not being given a full voice with the overlap of the plans.
Focusing on the SJMSCP, the plan area covers approximately one-third of the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta in both the Primary and Secondary Zones. The SJMSCP is a permitted habitat conservation plan containing existing agreements with our federal partners. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and state partners California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)agencies including a very complicated Biological Opinion issued with the take permits. These existing agreements are a major difference between SJMSCP and the others under development. Therefore, the SJMSCP (and other implementing plans) should be considered an existing condition and included as such as the baseline.
The SJMSCP has been diligently fulfilling the terms of the Implementation Agreement and issued federal and state take permits by mitigating for development in San Joaquin County through acquisition of conservation easements and establishment of habitat preserves under an existing conservation strategy which include areas considered under the proposed Delta Plan and the incorporated BDCP.
After numerous hours of analysis of the enormous amount of text of the various documents which make up the Draft BDCP and the Draft BDCP EIR/EIS, our staff continues to have the same concerns previously expressed in our communications to BDCP staff and consultants as well as new concerns from the Draft BDCP and Draft EIR/EIS which need to be addressed/examined/explained more completely. All these concerns are matters which can cause great conflict between the already approved implementing SJMSCP under federal and state take permits and the proposed developing BDCP.
Therefore, SJCOG, Inc. strongly recommends the following be addressed by any subsequent drafts or documents of an EIR/EIS:
Chapter 4 — • Section 4.1.2 Project Level and Program Level Analyses
As described as ashort-coming of the document in this section, the future planned `locations for restoration and prese~°vation actions within the conservation zones have not been specifically identified ut this time' which means the document is guessing about the impacts to other implementing (e.g. SJMSCP and East Contra Costa HCP/NCCP) and developing (Solano, South Sacramento, Yolo) plans surrounding the Delta. The
2~Page BDCP draft EIR/EIS — SJCOG, Inc. document states the `analysis is being done at a ~rogranzmatic level based on theoretical effects of typical construction, operation and ~nccintenance activities that would be undertaken for implementation of CM2-CM22 at u progrunz-level of analysis, describing what environmental effects MAY occur in future project phase.' The document pushes future project-level review (as necessary) prior to implementation of specific measures other than CM-1. The reality of approving one of the largest infrastructure projects which can greatly affect existing and planned habitat conservation plans in the Delta without frilly vetting the actual impacts seem near sighted.
The Draft EIR/EIS should take a step back to further detail the specific sites, acreages and restoration/preservation conceUts to fully evaluate the ii~ipacts in consultation with the specific habitat plan administrators before release of the final EIR/EIS document.
• Section 4.2.1.1 CEQA and NEPA Baselines
The `Existing Conditions' assumed in the baseline employed in this draft EIR/EIS doctunent is supposed to take into account facilities and ongoing programs that existed as of February 13, 2009. The SJMSCP has been in existence since 2001 uid implementing in partnership with the USFWS, under a Section 10 take permit, and CDFW,under a Section 2081 take permit successfitlly within San Joaquin County which covers approximately 33% of the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta area. Over that time, the SJMSCP has employed a Conservation Strategy which is the back bone of the preserve system to off-set the loss of thousands of acres of covered activities within San Joaquin County over the 50-year term of the fake permits. The BDCP Draft EIR/EIS has not based the document on the full build out of the SJMSCP for the overlap areas of the two very different plans which can create unrecoverable impacts to an existing habitat plan.
T11e Draft EIR/EIS should consider the frill build out of the SJMSCP (covered activities and preservation) as the baseline. Also, olu agency caiuiot fiilly comment on the draft EIR/EIS without adequate time to review in conceit with the important accompanying document of the draft IA.
~ Section 4.2.5.2 Cumulative Effects Analysis
The Draft EIR/EIS states the SJMSCP was accounted for as an existing condition under the cumulative effects analysis based on Appendix 3D, Defining Existing Co~~ditions, the No Action/No Project Alternative, and Cum~lcrtii~e Impact Co~~ditions, but in the section described it ot11y mentions `the contribution of the BDCP to other programs, projects and policies' rather than the destructive conflicts which would occur from the BDCP overlapping the already existing SJMSCP which has been implementing since 2001.
The Draft EIR/EIS should note the BDCP does contribute but also has adverse impacts in the cumulative aspect of the existing conditions.
3~Page BDCP draft EIR/EIS — SJCOG, Inc. • Section 4.2.5.3 Mitigation Approach
The Draft EIR/EIS states the `»aitigation related to ~•estoi•ation and other° activities in CM3-CM22 shall be the ~•esponsibility of a larger group of agencies (including DYI~R a~~d Recicrn~ation) us setfoi•t1z in relevant portions ofthe BDCP'and `responsibilitiesfor partica~lar nzeasiv~es tivill be clesc~~ibed irZ the Mifig~etioit Moiiitoi•i~7g and Reporting Progra»z to be issued in connection with the Final EIR/EIS.' Unfortunately, our staff was unable to identify the mitigation (who, what, when, why, where) details with relation to impacts to the existing SJMSCP areas which overlap the proposed BDCP conservation zones or locate the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program noted.
We respectfully request a copy of the Mitigation Monitoring end Renortin~ Program to be provided and discussed frilly with all the surrounding habitat plan administrators and regulatory agencies (e.g. USFWS and CDFW) to review and comment further before the Final EIR/EIS is released.
Chapter 12 • Section 12.0.2.1 Natural Communities
The Draft EIR/EIS touched on a list of `Natural Communities' with relation to terrestrial species but for simplicity, the cultivated lands were not studied in-depth.
The cultivated lands must be studied in-depth to understand the reality of the envirorunent for terresh~ial species between the agricultural land types ~e.~. row and field crop habitat, multi-pose habitat, irri acted pasture habitat, etc.) because each classification has specific impacts to various species (e.g. swainson's hawk, burrowing owls, tricolor black bird, etc.). The breakdown of the type of cultivated Iands will greatly affect the surroundingplans which may require conservation of these types of cultivated lands that are in conflict with the proposed BDCP.
• Section 12.0.3 Environmental Consequences
The Draft EIR/EIS calls out the first eleven conservation measures(CM 1 — 11) in this section. The CM 1, which regards construction and operation of water conveyance facilities, and CM 2 - 11 are measures which restore, protect, manage or enhance.
The section does not differentiate that CM1 actually deteriorates the value of the enviroiunent while CM 2 — 11 may provide actual benefit to the environment for BDCP. The use of building the facility as a conservation measure would be like considering the building of a large cement has extraction pad for equipment as a benefit to the agricultural and natural environment it is within. The CM 2 — 11 providing benefit to the SJMSCP is still to be determined.
• Section 12.0.6.2 Comparison of Effects of the Alternatives
4~Page BDCP draft EIR/EIS — SJCOG, Inc. The Draft EIIZ/EIS section goes into numerous scenarios which would cause great losses of natural communities and cultivated lands in the range of 40,000 acres on the lowest end to upward of 100,000 acres on the highest end. The alternatives each have dramatic effects on the Delta (and other programs planned or existing) except for the lone alternative of No Action Alternative. The Draft EIR/EIS states `under the No Action Alternative, there ~~ould be no tivater conveyance facilities construction effects on natural communities. Also, there would be no resto~•ution, protection or enhancement of natural co»~nzunities resulting from the other• BDCP corrservcrtion measures. Several programs that a~~e under i~~uy or in the planni~~g stages to increase wetlands and ripca•iaf2 nc~tu~•al communities in the absence of the BDCP ri~ill benefit natural con~n2~~zities crncl ii2c~~ease tivilcllife-friendly ag~•iczsltzr~•e in the stzrdy area.'
The to icy al response is building the project in any alternative other than the No Action Alternative causes more harm than benefit. Especially, by t11e Draft EIR/EIS states other existing or planned programs are providing the same or better benefit then the BDCP would. For the natural communities and agricultural mosaic in relation to the species, invest the money in the existing or planned programs within the areas to bolster the e~irr.Pcc
• Section 12.12.1 Natural Community Mapping Methods
The Draft EIR/EIS defines and categorizes the landscape with data from various sources and dates. The Draft EIR/EIS uses definitions from the CALFED Bay-Delta Program (2000) and CDFW (2005/2006) as well as GIS data using the 2005 USDA Farm Service Agency National Agriculture Imagery Program. Other sources used by BDCP were from the developing HCP/NCCP programs from surrounding counties (e.g. Yolo County Heritage and South Sacramento HCP) with dates of from around 2008. The western area of the Delta (e.g. western Area of Additional Analysis) was truthed in 2012 via Google Earth imagery and ground truthing by consultants.
The ilattual communities' definitions and ma~pin~ data used to analyze the BDCP are stale. Most of the data is between 5-10 years old in an ever changi~~g environment of the Delta. The Draft EIR/EIS should take the steps to use more current data and truthin~of the natural communities and landscape to understand the reality of the Delta today
• Section 12.2.3.1 City and County General Plans
The Draft EIR/EIS mentions the San Joaquin County General Plan 2010 adopted in 1992 and five policies from the Resources Element are considered applicable to the BDCP, Also, the General Plan is under revision currently.
Unfortunately, the Draft EIR/EIS does not fully explain the SJ County and the existing General Plan 2010 are part of the implementing SJMSCP for impacts within SJ County. The current and revision will continue to be part of the SJMSCP for providing conservation and ei~llancement with SJ County. Furthermore, the Draft EIR/EIS does not provide any disctitssion of the other jurisdictions with San Joaquin County that are 5~Page BDCP draft EIR/EIS — SJCOG, Inc. within the potential plan area of the BDCP (e.~. City of Lathrop, Citv of Lodi, Cit~of Stockton or Citv of Tracy) which are also signatories of the SJMSCP. The Draft EIR/EIS should include those jurisdictions' General Plan information in this section.
• Section 12.2.3.2 Habitat Conservation Plans
The Draft EIR/EIS note there is a relationship with other existing or developing habitat conservation plans discussed later in the section (12.3.3.18 Effects on Other Plans).
The SJMSCP comments will be addressed within that section.
• Section 12.3.3.17 Cumulative Effects on Terrestrial Biological Resources The Draft EIR/EIS states the Action Alternatives `~voarld hove little or no negative effect or 1~~oirld have long-ter•n~ beneficial effect on necr~•ly all of tl~e terrest~~ial biological resozn•ces of coi~cer~s~ in the study cn~ea. Tlzis is co~~sistent ~a~itlz the goal of HCP/NCCP ~~~og~~crms, rvhicl~ is to improve lo~7g-term V1pUlllly of special st~rtz~s species and their haUitats•. Tl~e pos•iti>>e effects of iin~lementing the BDCP crr•e similar• in all of the project alternatives other• than the No Action Alternative. There ~rre r•elcttively small var~iatior~s in the acres rffected by consh•uction of the crlte~•ncrtive ri~ate~• conveyance facilities (CMl), but the restoration, protection, enhancement and st~~essor reduction elements of the alternatives core the samefor Alternatives IA, 1B, 1 C, 2A, 2B, 2C, 3, 4, 6A, 6B, 8 and 9.'
Also, this section describes cumulative effects on Giant Garter Snare Movement and Connectivity between Subpopulations. It is stated in Impact BIO-190 under the second Millet point that `A rru~nber• of HCP's have bee». issued by tISF1~jS fog• projects anticipated to impact the giant gar•te~~ snake, ~-i~l~iclz i»clzule Scan Jo~~gi~in County Mz~lti- Species HCP....' and other areas within the giant garter snake range being developed.
As stated earlier in the Draft EIR/EIS —Section 12.0.6.2, the various alternative actions will have a wide ran e of impacts (project construction footprint and CM 2 — 11 on the existing landscape of the entire Delta ranging from 40,000 acres on the lowest end of the ~ectrum up to 100,000 acres of impact on the highest end. These changes would reatly have effect on the existing habitat landscape, local count governments' bottom tax rolls, productivity of the lands and especially the terrestrial species within each SUl'POU11CIlllg Delta COLl11ty W1tI1 eYistin~ or developing HCP/NCCPs. More discussion and explanation is needed with regards to the logic of the contradictory concept:
How do near-team period of alternatives disrupting temporarily or permanently removal of natural communities and modeled habitat for special status plant and wildlife species seem offset with potential undisclosed near-, mid-, and long-term conservation actions? One example is the impacts at Staten Island which is a specie friendly easement created with state public fiends within San Joaquin County for• the sand-hill cranes. Not to mention the SJMSCP complimentary habitat preserves adjacent to the Staten Island location. The sand-hill crane preserve on Staten Island and the adiacent SJMSCP preserves will have various impacts such as muck piles established large exhaust stacks 6~Page BDCP draft EIR/EIS — SJCOG, Inc. created and 5-9 nears of construction activity, noises and vibrations occurrin where lands have been set aside in protection for the species.
The SJMSCP holds two take authoritypermits under Section 10 (federal) and 2081 (state) which include potential iant darter snake habitat under incidental take minimization measures prescribed under the plan. The permits do not cover direct take of the ig ant garter snake or cover activities for ig; ant garter snake impacts in the "Known Occupied Areas" as clearly defined in the SJMSCP (e.~. lalown occupied habitat for the giant darter snake is the area west of I-5 on Terminous Tract, Shin Kee Tract, White Slough Wildlife Area, and Rio Blanc Tract). These "Known Occupied Areas" are the same tracts of land some of the BDCP alternative actions will be iinpactin~
• Section 12.3.3.18 Effects on Other Conservation Plans The Draft EIR/EIS was to analyze the impacts to the surrounding HCP/NCCP of the Delta which call out six (6) that will be impacted due to the overlap of the potential BDCP plan area. While four (4) are still in development (e.g. South Sacramento, Yolo, Solano and Yuba-Sutter), the BDCP will have impacts on the remaining two (2) HCP/NCCP and an adopted Conservation Strategy Plan. The Delta's two implementing HCP/NCCP programs have been in the implementation phase with federal and state regulatory partners since as early as 2001 (e.g. SJMSCP). The `corrst~~uction of the ~a~ater conveyance facilities ~•i~oulc~ r•edz~ce the ar~~ozrnt of ~~vcrilc~ble cultivated ltrnd fog• acgzrisitions by o>>e~~lcrppi~~g conser~~atio~~ I~luns by .... us mZ~ch as 1'l, 016 acres i~~ the San Joaquin CoZmry HCP (Alter•i~atives 1I3, 2B, 6B).'
The table 12-11 describes the range of impacts to the SJMSCP for the footprint alone to be between 6 acres to 14,050 acres.
The tables 12-14 and 12-18, 12-19, 12-20, 12-~1, 12-26 and 12-27 show the estimated acreage in the overlap for the various activities between the existing SJMSCP and the proposed BDCP to be a wide range. The tables states the BDCP would need a minimum of approximately 14,000 acres to 49,000 acres within the overlap area.
The Draft EIR/EIS states `tl~e cultivated ~reser•vation needs of tl~e BDCP ar~d other' conservation plan are cleenzed to be tivithout conflict if t1~e crvcailable czrltivatecl land ~a~ith full bzsild-ozrt is at least double tl~e sung ofthe ~7eeds ofthe h-vo flans in the overlap a~•ea. This assurr7~tion is based on the need to hove »core cultiv~cted landfor preservation than required to ensure that enough willing sellers a~•e available fog° each plan.' The Draft EIR/EIS refet•s to the draft BDCP out for public comment `Chapter 3, Section 3.4.1.3.1 Land Protection laving a pr°ocess fo~~ coo~•dinafion among BDCP, Soa~th Sacramento HCP, a~~d San Joaquin Multiple Species Co~~servation Plcrn to ensue°e szffrcienl lands are cn~crilable in the overlap ~n•ecrfor' each plan to meet its conservation obligations.'
For the SJMSCP as an implementing HCP since 2001, the discussions have been on- ~oinp with the BDCP staff and consultant regardingthe Draft EIR/EIS calculations and the referenced section of the DBCP Chester 3, Section 3,4.1.3.1 -Land Protection with regards to the proposed potential process between Mans. The SJMSCP 2010 data used 7~Page BDCP draft EIR/EIS — SJCOG, Inc. for acreage accounting in the Draft EIR/EIS for potential impacts within the overlap area for the project alternatives and restoration/enhancements coupled with the SJMSCP are not accurate as reported to BDCP staff and consultants or available in the SJMSCP Annual Reports. To further complicate the matter, the assumptions used by the BDCP staff and consultants for the analysis was not accurate to the actual activities/allowances of the SJMSCP's conservation strategies which will decrease the overall acreage allowed to be used by the SJMSCP in the overlay area to meet the obligations of the issued permits. The Draft EIR/EIS shows lower acreage than the reality of lairds impacted bX the BDCP activities and over reports the available lands for the SJMSCP to acquire within the overla}~ area. As to the statement of `deemed to be i-vithoz~t conflict', it has been stated to BDCP staff repeatedly and now in writing- to the Draft EIR/EIS there will be a maior conflict because the `double the szrm of~~eeds' does not exist in the overlap area to `meet its conseri~ation obliQcrtion' for the iinplementin~ SJMSCP.
On the matter of the BDCP Chapter 3, Section 3.4.1.3.1 —Land Protection statement in the Draft EIR/EIS, the most accurate description (from the SJMSCP viewpoint would be described as the Chapter text is in the early infancy stage and needs to be completely vetted with all the surroundin~~Delta HCP/NCCPs. For the SJMSCP, nothing has been a red ed upon with the implernentin~ SJMSCP administrating a~~permittees or re u~ l~tory partners in accord with the BDCP as for any potential processes. Amore detailed or accurate description of the entire Section of the Draft EIR/EIS is requested.
Our staff looks forward to working with the BDCP staff and consultants on the continued development of the BDCP document and BDCP final EIR/EIS (and draft IA when available) to insure a greater• likelihood that the BDCP and SJMSCP will be complimentary to each other rather than conflicting.
Please feel free to contact myself or Steven Mayo, Program Manager, ou my staff with a~ly comments, concerns oi• additional needed information regarding the SJMSCP and the continued work on behalf of the county-wide habitat plan in San Joaquin County.
Since • y,
STEVE DIAL Deputy Executive Director /Chief Financial Officer
Cc: SJCOG, Inc. Board Josh Emery, United States Fish and Wildlife Service Todd Gardner, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Technical Advisory Committee(HTAC) members Kathy Miller, City of Stockton Council Member and Delta Coalition Chair
8~Page BDCP draft EIR/EIS — SJCOG, Inc. S J C O G, I N C.
SSS E. WeberAvenrre • Stocktar, Cal~rni~r 95202
. ~' 209.235.0600 209.235.0438 (fnx) rurutu.sjcog.ag
Sleue Dreher ~lia~A July 25, 2014
A,irbary s;lun
VICE CHAIR A~irlreto T. Cbetley BDCP Comments ~~E~~T~~•~ ~~Rt`"'R Ryan Wulff, NMFS ttic»iGerAgenrirt 650 Capitol Mall, Suite 5-100 CITI85 OY
lSCALON, Sacramento, GA 95814 ~nrri eor, i.oui~
\tANTECA, K,~~~N. Re: Draft BDCP Plan Public Review Comment Letter Pertaining to San Joanuin County S~`°°"T°"', Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and O~ei~ Space Plan (SJMSCP) rnncv, n:n i'~a~ couury of s.~v ~onqutx Dear Mr. Wulff:
SJCOG, Inc. is the administrator of the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP). Our staff has continuously been involved with the evolution of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) since the inception. Our agency is glad to provide individual coi~unents on the Draft BDCP Plan. In addition to this individual comment letter, SJCOG, Inc., in conjunction with other Delta Initiative Coalition stakeholders, is submitting a separately hansmitted joint comment letters. As reference, our agency also concurs with the issues raised its the `Ftieizds of the River' letter dated May 15, 2014 regarding the extension of the comment period due to the failure to release the draft Implementation Agreement (IA).
SJCOG,Inc. has identified issues in the prior releases of the BDCP draft docuineiits (part or whole) which were again not frilly addressed in this specific Draft BDCP document sections as requested. The continued concerns with the BDCP (and further displayed in BDCP Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Study) are very similar to those olir agency has voiced previously to Resource Agency staff, BDCP leadership through both the Schwarzenegger and Brown administrations, key BDCP staff, and consultant firms throughout the years regarding overlapping parts of San Joaquin County covered by the SJMSCP. They are;
• The unforeseen impacts to the SJMSCP with regards to the federal and state permits being implemented tiinder the existing SJMSCP to balance development and protection of species within Saz1 Joaquin County which the Draft BDCP document still does not fully addressed. 1~Page BDCP Public Review- SJCOG, Inc. • Certain proposed activities and oversight of the BDCP, such as the types and extent of restoration iii the Delta ~vI11C~1 1171) ~11V~ c~ 11e~1t1V8 1111pc~Ct 021 e\IStlllg ~1'eSel'VeS and our ability to acquire future preserves within San Joaquin County to meet the obligations of the SJIvISCP's existing permits in cooperation with our federal and state partners.
• The firttire impacts by the BDCP requiring excessive administrative time and costs to the SJMSCP to provide the vast amount of coordination anti information to minimize the potential devastating effects to the e,cisting habitat plan.
A more global concern our staff contimies to have of the Draft BDCP document is all the Delta counties which have or are developing HCPs or NCCPs in partnership with federal and state regulatory agencies are not being given a seat at the table or a frill voice with tl~e overlap of the plans.
Focusing on the SJMSCP, the San Joaquin County plan area covers approximately one-third of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in both the Primary and Secondary Zones. The SJMSCP is a permitted habitat conservation plan containing existing agreements with our federal partner, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and state partner, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 11lClUCllllg Ullt IlOt Illlllt2d t0 a very complicated Biological Opinion issued with the take permits. These existin~a~reements are a major difference between SJMSCP and the other HCPs/NCCPs wider development. Therefore, the S.iMSCP (end other implen~e~lting plans) sl~oulci Ue considered an existi►lg condition and fully included as such as the baseline.
The SJMSCP has been diligently fulfilling the terms of the Implementation Agreement, Biological Opinion and issued federal and state take permits by mitigating for development impacts in San Joaquin County through minimizing incidental take of species and acquisition of conservation easements as habitat preserves under an existing conservation strategy which include vast areas considered under the proposed BDCP.
After' 11Lt111ePOUS I10111'S Of a11aI}~S1S Of the e1101'1110LIS ZIIlOUilt Of text Of tllE VZL'IOL1S C~OCL1111e11tS which male up the Draft BDCP and the Draft BDCP EIR/EIS, our stafFcontinues to have the wine concerns previously expressed in our communications to BDCP staff and consultants as well as new concerns from the Draft BDCP and Draft EIR/EIS which need to be addressed/examined/explained more completely. All these concerns are platters which can cause great conflict between the already approved implementing SJMSCP under federal and state take permits and the proposed developing BDCP.
Therefore, S,TCOG, Inc. strongl}~ recommends the following be addressed Uy any subsequent drafts or doc~u~zents for the BDCP:
• Chapter 2 Section 2.3 Existing Ecological Conditions
2~Page BDCP Public Review- SJCOG, Inc. The Draft BDCP defines and categorizes the ecological landscape with data fiom various sources and dates. The Draft BDCP uses definitions from the CALFED Bay-Delta Program (2000), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW - 2005/2006) and Department of Water Resources (DWR), to name a few, as well as GIS data using the 2007 Vegetation and Land Use Classification Map of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta from 2007. Other sources used by BDCP were from the developing HCP/NCCP programs from surrounding counties (e.g. Yolo County Heritage and South Sacramento HCP) with dates from around 2008. The western area of the Delt1 (e.g. western Ai•ea of Additional Analysis) was tiuthed in 2011 via Google Garth imagery and ground truthin~ by consultants.
The existin ec~olo~ical condition definitions and mapping data used to anal zy e the BDCP are stale. Most of the data is between 5-10 years old in an ever-chance environment of the Delta. The Draft BDCP document states that the ever~ging cultivated land in the Delta are based on the `crop-rotation patter°r~s' and `~nai~ket forces' of the indi.►stry. Those factors lead to show dramatic trends in the last 30-40 ,years in the Delta (e.~g. an 18-fold increase in >>i»e>>urds — 2007 DWR). The Draft BDCP should take the steps to use more current data and truthing of the `exis[in~ ecodogfccrl cor~ditio~~' and natural communities' lanclscaUe to understand the reality of the Delta today.
• Chapter 3 Section 3.2.3.2 Physical Habitat Restoration
The proposed conservation measure of 84,000 acres of natural communities contains 65,000 acres of tidal natural communities and associated transitional uplands distributed across the P11n Area, but primarily within Suisun Marsh, Soufli Delta acid Cache Slough ROAs. In additio~~, the proposed plan calls for another 5,000 acres of riparian restoration to occur within firt~u•e floodplains ad tidal restoration areas.
The South Delta is primarily an agricultural landscape of row and field crops which support a robust agricultural econoniv and various suites of species covered under the existing SJMSCP. The South Delta lands are a focal point to the existing conservatio~i strateg employed by the SJMSCP over the first 14-years of implementation of the county-wide habitat plan covering San Joaquin Counter The SJMSCP has encu~nhered over 1,600 acres of agricultural lairds in the South Delta and Conservation Zone 7 area for protection of row a~ici field crop habitat for proliferation of the multitude of species under the SJMSCP (Figure 3.2-12 and 15 BDCP). In the dear future, the SJMSCP has more 11nds negotiated for protection within the area to continue the important strategies of the SJMSCP. The proposed BDCP conversion of some of the best agricultural lands within San Joaquin County to tidal communities will cause great harm to the local economy, generations of farming families and the SJMSCP's cornmitmeilt to fulfilling the obligations of the existingpermits.
Chapter 3 Section 3.2.4 Developing the Terrestrial Resources Component of the Conservation Strategy 3~Page BDCP Public Review- SJCOG, Inc. The proposed BDCP's terrestrial strategies are stated as `aclions to provide conr~ectivily between areas th~r! are important for sustaining and improving ecosystem functions and fog• the coi~servatio~~ of covered species.' It continues to discuss species along the periphe~•y of the Plan Area crs `op~ortuni~iesfor increased I~abitut co»nectiviry ~-i~ill be n7ostly bets-~~een existing a~~d ner,~ly protected te~~restrial species' habi~crt i~~ the Plun A~^ea and pr°otected te~•~•es~r•ial species' habitat adjacent to the Plan Ai•eu (mostly associated 1~i~ith adjacent or sarrr•ounding HCPs and NCCPs).'
This section of the proposed Plan Area for the BDCP pots a higher value and need of the proposed BDCP's conservation strategy than that of any of the surrounding plans which are developing or already in existence. Since 2001, the SJMSCP has been providing the protection, improvement and connectivity for the protected species within the SIMSCP (Figure 3.2-12 and 15 BDCP). The tone of the section assumes the adjacetlt lands and/or surroundiiZe HCPs/NCCPs should be subordinate to the developing BDCP strategies and proposed restoration plans there in. This is illogical because the SJMSCP is to be consiclered baseline existing condition by the BDCP. The assumLtion of the proposed BDCP is in direct conflict to the SJMSCP.
• Chapter 3 Section 3.2.4.1 Conservation Targets
The lead paragraph of the section states `The cor~se~•v~rtion ta~•gets a~~e i»tended to satisfy n~itigcrtion ~•equii•ernents associated ~~~ith the effects of covered activities on natz~ral conamttnities ar~c~ covered species crud p~•ovide the conseri~ation of those species and their habitats.'
The ~oposed project footprint impacts and operations associated with the exporting of waters from the northei~i state rivers to deliver to export pumps must impact a large amount of natural tidal communities to dictate the described miti~atioi~/restoration. Even under standa~•d mitigation re uirements ratios of 3:1 for natural communit~gation, the proposed creatior~/restoration requirement of 85,000 acres of natural tidal communities from t11e eYisting~riine agricultural lands which serve as an economic driver to families and counties as well as habitat to protected species would be exorbitant to mitigate the pt•o~osed proiect. Please identify the natural tidal communities impacted by the footprint and operation of the project which requires the nliti aeon.
• Chapter 3 Section 3.2.4.2.1 Reserve System Assembly Principles
Tlie section lists bulleted principles which assist in the Reserve System Assembly to guide and support decisions of the proposed BDCP Implementation Office regarding the acquisition of reserve lands (not all included): o Protect, enhance, and restore the ecological diversity of iiatt~ral communities and covered species habitats at the periphery of the Plan Area on lands
4~Page BDCP Public Review- SJCOG, Inc. 1110St~y likely to 1CC011'11110C{Zte fUtlll'e sea level rise and less likely to be flooded as a result of levee failures. o Design reserves to appropriatel}~ scale the ecological gradient and emphasize com~atibilit}~ between restored natural coirununities and working landscapes (e.g. cultivated lands). o Maximize connections between reserves and with existing conservation lands in and adjacent to the Plan Area. o Where feasible, bL11ICI off of existing conservation lands and management systems to increase management efficiency, connectivity, and patch size. o Protest the highest value nattu•al communities and covered species habitats available consistent with the BDCP implantation schedule. o Implement conservation me~tsui•es for terrestrial and nontidal wetland communities and covered wildlife anti plants in a manner that complements or supports the conservation strategies of approved and developing conservation plans for areas adjacent to and overlapping the Plan Area.
Based on the principles stated in this section of the proposed BDCP as ug iding aild sup~~orting of the BDCP Implementation Office's decisions, the repetitious concept through the principles ire protection Of ~111C~S with focus on worl Chapter 3 Section 3.2.4.2.3 Relationship of the Conservation Sh•ategy ~~ith other Regional Conservation Planning Pt•ograms As noted in this section, the SJMSCP has the largest amount of overlap area (more than 300,000 acres) with the proposed BDCP. Further the section states the proposed BDCP Implementation Office may partner with willing regional conservation plaruling sponsors to jointly implement such actions which complement each plan and provide economies of scale/efficiencies listing specific criteria (not all listed): o The BDCP is responsible for the mitigation of its effects. o The mitigation actions and the mitigation requirements of the BDCP must be additive to the mitigation obligation of other plans (e.g. BDCP mitigation cannot supplant the mitigation obligations of other plans and vice-versa). The SJMSCP has been an active participant with discussions since the inception of the proposed BDCP to rasp the entirety of tl~e potential conflicts created between the existing habitat flan and the proposed BDCP. To date, the discussions have not S~Page BDCP Public Review- SJCOG, Inc. yielded much headway for common round (e.~governance, guarantees, etc.). The concerns are the proposed BDCP project and required mitigation of the effects will cause great harm to the permitted SJMSCP in fulfillment of the obligations (e.~. conservation foals and spate ies). The existing SJMSCP has been implementing efficiently since 2001 for protecting various habitat communit~ypes in San Joaquin County but now inav Ue supplanted b the potential BDCP conservation strategy, goals, restoration and/or governance. The SJMSCP overlaps multiple proposed BDCP conservation zones (CZ 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) in whole or part where existing preserves and strategies have been employe~Figure 3.2-12 and 15 BDCP). Tl~e potential of increased costs, administration, competition or loss of miti action inventory are unclear in the proposed BDCP document. 1. What is the meaning of the statement `the BDCP actions and miti a~ tion requirements of the BDCP being additive'? 2. What would be the result if there is coilflictin~ actions or needs between the existing SJMSCP an~i proposed BDCP (e.~,_nermits needs, land acquisitions, etc. ? • Chapter 3 Section 3.3.5.1 Reserve System The section identifies in the table for Goal L1 and subsequent `Objectives' the minimum number of target acres per Restoration Opportunity Area (ROA). The Objective L1.3 addresses tidal natural communities and h•aiisitional uplands further restoration in the amount of 65,000 acres is plan►zed. The `Objective' identifies target minimums of 1,500 lcres for the Cosumnes/Mokelumne ROA and 5,000 acres for• the South Delta ROA. In order to attain the mininitun target numbers within the overlap ROAs of the Cosumnes/Molcelumne (minimum — 1,500 acres) and the South Delta (minimum — 5,000 acres means the removal of highly productive agricultural lands. These areas are partially or coiZlpletely wifl~in the SJMSCP plait area which are part of the agricultural habitat conservation strateg~emploved under the implementing habitat plan for San Joaquin County. The reduction of available agricultural lands will dramatically impact the ability of the SJMSCP to fulfill the obligations of the SJMSCP permits over the life of the plan (2001-2051). Further, the SJMSPC has existing easements (e.~. Ishizuka in the Cosumnes/Molceltunne ROA and Wing Levee Preserve i» the South Delta ROAD which could be i~ •eatly affected b conversioiz of such lar~~nitude to something other than agriculture. The change of highly productive agriculture lands can cause other concerns to the generations of farming families losing land by eminent domain to achieve the foal, a loss of productive agriculture in a flourishin~a~ricultural economy, a decrease in San Joaquin County tax rolls and create an iullcnown concern for Mosquito/Veetor Control in San Joaquin Count inn the potential tidal natural community. • Chapter 3 Section 3.3.6.4.2 Natural Community Goals acid Objectives 6~Page BDCP Public Review- SJCOG, Inc. The section identifies in Goal TFEWNCI: Large, interconnected patches of tidal freshwater emergeizt wetland natural community within the `Reserve System' of the proposed BDCP. The Objective TFEWNC 1.1 addresses of the 65,000 acres of tidal natural communities and hansitional uplands (Objective L1.3 above) will restore or create at least 24,000 acres of tidal fi•esliwater emergent wetland in Conservation Zones 1, 2, 4, S, 6, and/or 7. The section goes on to provide the rationale (TFEWNCI.2) would be expectations of the restoration/creation to potentially occur `along the muinstem and several channels of the San Joccquin, Old and Middle Rivers...a»d near the confluence ofthe Cosumnes and Mokelumne Rive~•s.' In order to attain tlae target nliu~bers within the overla,~ Conservation Zones means the removal of hi~hl~productive a~;riciiltural lands. These areas are partially or completely within the SJMSCP flan area which are part of the a~Lricultural habitat conservation strategy employed Linder the implementinghabitat flan for San Joaquin the County. The reduction of available a~riculhir~►1 lands will dramatically impact ability of the SJMSCP to fiilfili the obligations of the SJMSCP permits over the life of the plan (2001-2051). Further, the SJMSPC has existing easements (e.~. Ishizuka, Burchell, Nuss, White Slough, Hilder, Beck, Wiii~ Levee, Jaques, Pombo, Pelee Alegre, Mizuno, Cabrall all within the Conservation Zones which could be neatly affected by the conversion of SL1CI~ large magnitude to sometllin~ other than agriculture. The clian e of highlyproductive 1~riculture lands can cause other concerns to the generations of fartnin~ families losin land by eminent domain to achieve the foal, ~ loss of productive ~gciculture in a flourishing agricultural economy, a decrease in San Joaquin Cowity taY rolls and cre~►te an unlalown concern for Mosquito/Vector Control in San Joaquin County in the potential tidal nahiral community. • Chapter 3 Section 3.3.6.5.2 Nahual Conuliunity Goals and Objectives This section identifies Goal VFRNCI: Extensive wide bands or large patches of interconnected valley/foothill ripariaiz natural community. Ftu•ther, the section explains the Objective VFRNCI.1 to restore or create 5,000 acres of valley/foothill riparian natural CO111111UIllty, with at least 3,000 acres OCCIiI'I'tllg on restored seasonally inundated floodplain. Identified in Objective VrRNC1.2 is protection of 750 acres of existing valley/foothill riparian natural CO111111LIlllty in CO11S0TVat1011 Zone 7 to occtu by year 10 of the proposed BD~P. Also, the section identifies at least 3,000 acre will occur in the south Delta seasonal floodplain restoration site in Conservation Zoi1e 7. In order to attain the target numbers within the overlap Conservation Zones means the removal of higl~ly~productive agricultural lands. These areas are pa~-tially or completely within the SJMSCP flan area which ace part of the agricultural habitat conservation strategy employed under the implementing habitat plan for San Joaquin County. The redL~ction of available agricultural lands will dramaticallypact the ability of the SJMSCP to fulfill the obligations of the SJMSCP pei~lits over the life of the plan (2001-2051). Further, the SJMSPC leas existing easements (e.g. Ishizuka, 7~Page BDCP Public Review- S1COG, Inc. Btu•chell, Nuss, White Slough, Hilder, Beck, Wind Levee, Jaques, Poinbo, Pele ri, Alegre, M1ZL1110, Cabral) all within the Conservation Zones which could be ray affected by t11e conversion of such lar~gnitude to sonlethin~ other than agriculture. The chan e of higl~l~~roductive agriculhire lands can cause other concerns to the generations of farming families losing land by eminent domain to achieve the foal, a loss of Productive agriculture in a flourishin~a~ricultural economy, a decrease in San Joaquin County tax rolls and create an unknown concern for Mosquito/Vector Control in Sin Joaquin County in the potential tidal natural conimunity. • Chapter 5 Section 5.4 Effects on Natural Conununities This section addresses the proposed changes for the BDCP in terms of aquatic and tenesnial restoration and enhancements for all of the following: o Tidal Perennial o Tidal Mudflat o Tidal Brackish Emergent Wetland o Valley/Foothill Riparian o Nontidal Perennial Aquatic and Nontidal Freshwater o Alkali Seasonal Wetland o Vernal Pool Complex o Managed Wetaland o Other Nahiral Seasonal Wetland o Grassland o Cultivated Lands The section describes the expected net effect of the actions taken by the proposed BDCP ii1 a very one-sided light but does not delve into die real effects of the proposed removal of the fertile ground to the surrounding commw~ities (e.~~ farmers, local iluisdictions and HCPs/NCCPs) with tl~e vast amount of land conversion being proposed. To focus on just one portion of the overall section of cultivated lAnds due to the covered activity, the proposed actions will PERMANENTLY REMOVE an approximate total of 55,372 acres of 11i~h quality producing agricultural land in the Delta. As stated in the section, the amount of acres is 11% of the entice cultivated lands within the proposed Plan Area of the BDCP. The breakdown of the loss is as follows convertin highly productive a~riculttual lands to noii-agricultural uses: 0 629 acres (1%) Tremont Weir/Yolo B}a~ass inundation 0 960 acres(2%) from tidal natural communities restoration 0 1,950 acres(4%) nontidal marsh restoration 0 2.000 acres(4%grassland restoration 0 2,087 acres(4%) levee conshuction for floodplain expansion 0 3,593 acres(6%) seasonal floodplain restoration 0 4588 acres(8%) from conveyance facility construction 0 39,565 acres (71%) from tidal natural communities restoration 8~Page DDCP Public Review- SJCOG, Inc. San Joaquin County overlaps a~reat portion ~apnroximately 40%)of the lands in the Plan Area which would equate to over 22,000 acres of loss if distributed proportionally. San Joaquin County acid local jurisdictions, as laud-use authority, will have little or no say over the potential removal of those productive lands by the prouosed BDCP activities which will have great harm to the Count~(e.~. agricultural production, economic factors, taxes, loss of generations of fa~nily farms, etc.). Further, the SJMSCP which covers the same lands will be reatly affected by the PERMANENT REMOVAL of the highlyproductive agricultural lands which are potential habitat for the 97 covered species in the countX-wide habitat conservation plan (which agricultural habitat types are a priinar focus). The PERMANENT REMOVAL of the agricultural lands can rg eatly cause harm to the ability of the SJMSCP because of unforeseen cumulative impacts not taken into account within the SJMSCP's Biolo icg al Opinion was issued ai d/or to meet the obligations under the implementing; federal and state take permits for mitigation requirements. • Chapter 6 Section 6.l Performing Implementation Actions This section describes the }proposed actions of performing the Implementation Actions, property acquisitions, planning/design, regulatory compliance, restoration schedule and post-permit term implementation. The Table 6-2 `Inzplenie~tation Schedule for Natu~•al Corrrmun~ry P~•otection and Restoration Conse~•vation Measures' details the type, acreage and term (near-term — 1 to 10 year; early long- terin — 11 to 15 years; late long-term —16 to 50 years) for each conservation measure under the proposed BDCP. The I~lanned acquisition method is likely to occur on public lands but may require the acquisition of ~~rivate lands by way of fee title or conservation easement. The actual inlplem~ntation of each conservation measure inay require more planning/design as these come to fruition with appropriate regulatory and jurisdictional entities. The section on Implementation Actions is very general and does not have enough details to fully comment on the actions, tinlin~ and impacts each conservation measure. The `lcicicin~ the cart clown the road' approach for the ~roiect level design costs/funding assurances and schedule of work mattes comii~enting, on this section rather difficult. With most public sector proiects and especially under the inane HCPs/NCCPs, the be~innin~ of any construction activities (e.~permit issuance and/or the ground brealcin~ of the facilities) that create `take' for loss of habitat for species should require the miti ation fees, land dedicatioi7, etc.) of said pro'ect t be provided. The proposed BDCP pasties the mitigation required because of the protect impacts to be provided years after the project begun consri-uctin~ and most during the later operations. As stated in Table 6-2, the rnitigatior~ requirements seem to be delegated to the firture (near-term — 1 to 10 Year; early long-term — 11 to 15 years; late long-tern? — 16 to 50 years term of the permits which means impacts have occurred without actual mitigation being~rovided. • Chapter 6 Section 6.2 Interim Iillplementation Actions 9~Page BDCP Public Review- SJCOG, Inc. This section addresses various projects that are to be cotulted toward meeting the proposed BDCP's requirements but d~ not provide mitigation for au interim project. The section describes 'actions lhul hcr>>e been cornplelecl, ure in ~l~e process, or a~°e plc~rrneci 1n be ir~itic~ted prior ro the permit issa~anee' for the proposed BDCP. The section lists various proiects which the proposed BDCP will be allowed credit toward the requirements under the permits. TUe lands are either public held lands or private land associated with another project is some capacity. The listed pro'ecL is iii the section create nuestions such as public lands owned vy the state and the taxpayers of the state being used for Water Contractor's wins acid niiti~ation from prior project that have been on- oin being used for BDCP purt~oses under the permits. Some listed Interim Implementation Actions projects which need more details are: o Calhoun Cut and Lindsey Slough Restoration ■ 927 acres property owned by CDFW —how was it acquired and what funds were used? o Lorver Yolo Restoration Proiect ■ Restorltion project intended to Delp fulfill the tidal wetland mitigation requirement for the 2008 BiOp on Long-term Operation of the CVP and SWP —how is this not ciouble dip}~in~ o Dutch Slo~.i~h Tidal Restoration Project ■ 1,I78 acre property owned by DWR —how was it acquired and what funds were used? o McCormack-Williamson Tract Restoration ■ 1,660 acre p~erty owned by The Nature Cvnservancv raider a CALFED rant ~USFWS funds) — do the USFWS funds used allow it to be used toward mitigation required by the proposed BDCP? o Grizzly Slough ■ 489 acre property that was purchased i» 1992 as mitigation for the SWP and owned by DWR. Nearly 70 acres his been utilized to mitigate for the Delta Levee Program while the remaining 450 acres (please check on math as remainder should be 419 acres) is planned for riparian and floodplain restoration —how is this not double dipping? o Meins Landing; Restoration Project ■ 666 acre waterfowl huntin cam_purchased in December 2005 by DWR in partnership with Suisun Marsh Preservation Agreement Agencies (DWI , CDI'W, Reclamation, Suisun Resource Conservation District) and the California Costal Conservancy —how was it aenuired anti what Puncis ~veee used? ■ Part of the Van Sickle Island Levee Improveiilent Program and portions of the land not counted as n~iti~ation for other DWR programs —what part is counted and not counted of the 666 acres or other land not identified? o Hill Slough Ticial Restoration Project 10~Page QDCP Public Review- SJCOG, Inc. ■ 1,723 acre property owned by CDFW of which 640 acres and 200 acres will be considered —how was it acquired and what funds were used? Can BDCP count any toward obli at~ions? o Tule Red Restoration Project ■ 350 acre tidal marsh with another 1,300 acre potential owned bX Westervelt Ecological Services purchased to held fulfill the tidal wetland mitigation requirement of the 2008 USrWS BiOp for Coordii7ated Long-Term Operations of t11e CVP and SWP (USFWS ?008). Based on the MOA beh~veen Reclamation, USFWS, DWR, NMFS, CDFW and SrWC, this restoratioiz project may also count toward BDC~ tidal wetland restoration —how is this not double dlppillg~ ■ Restoration ma,~panded into an adjacent land owned by CDFW —how was it acquired and what fluids were used? o Rush Ranch Restoration Project ■ 2,070 acres acquired by the Solano Land Tivst in 1988 intended to helu fulfill the tidal wetland requirement for the 2008 USFWS BiOn for the Coordinated Long-Term O~eratioiz of the CVP and SWP ~USFWS 2008). Based on the MOA between Reclamation, USFWS, DWR, NMFS, CDFW and SFWC, this restoration project n1a count towaxd BDCP tidal wetland restoration —how is this not double dip}~ing? ■ Proiect was initiated throe ~Ig age Bement with DWR, Reclamation and the Suisun Marsh Plan with Uartial fundin t~ llrough the CALFEb ERP. Some restoration could count toward BDCP obligations —how was it acquired and what fiends were used? o Prospect Isllncl Restoration Proiect ■ 1,306 acre uroperty acquired b~~ DWR from General Services Administration in January 2010. The restoration project is intended to help fulfill the tidal wetland re~c uirement for the 2008 USFWS BiOp for the Coordinated Long-Term Operation of the CVP and SWP (USFWS 2008 Per the Fish Restoration Program A reement 2010) between CFDW,DWR and MOA with Reclamation, USFWS, DWR, NMFS, CDFW and SP~VCA it may count toward BDCP obli atig~ons - how was it acquired and what fiends were used? —how is this not double dipping ■ The proiect is frilly fielded by SWP through the Fish Restoration Program Assistance —how do those funds associated with the State Water Proiect allowed to use toward the BDCP? o Chipps Island Restoration ■ 1,000 acre pro erty which has only 750 acres availat~le for potential mitigation land since 250 acres has been set aside for a previous mitigation proiect — is that tl~e case or all 1,000 would be used toward the BDCP obli ations? o Decker Island Restoration 11 ~ Page BDCP Public Review- SJCOG, Inc. ■ 658 acre property created in tl~e early 1900 throe Igl deposits from Montezuma Hills. 473 acres is privately owned, CDFW owns 34 acres and Port of Sacrameizto owns 140 acres. A~~roxinlately 110 acres of restoration will provide habitat to mi rating salmon and steelhead by the Port of Sacramento as ~ restoration project —what part of the land is mitigation obligation alre~d~(e.g. Port of Sacramento or CDFW Levee Pro ram ? —how was the it acquired bX CDFW and what fluids were used? — is anv of this oin tg o be considered double dipping? There are man questions, concerns and potential issues of the min ling of prior project obligations and counting toward the proposed BDCP obligations under a HCP/NCCP permit. More clarification on how prior BiOp or projects are related to the BDCP would be helpful as well as anv information on the funding mechanisms used to secure the properties. • Chapter 6 Section 6.3 Planning, Compliance and Progress Reporting, 6.4 Regulatory Assurances, Changed Circumstances and Unforeseen Circumstances, and 6.5 Changes to the Plan or Permits These sections addresses how the Implementation Office will prepare planning documents, implementation reports and demonstrate compliance with the BDCP document (e.g. Annual Worlc Plan and Budget, Delta Water Operations, Progress Report, Five-Yeas• Review and Implementation Plan, Regulatory Assurances, Obligations of the Parties, etc.) that references 1 draft IA as a part of the whole project and those associated authorities under ESA, NCCPA and alI other regulatory requirements. The section is difficult to comment on without ~dequ~te time pt•ovided in concert with the recently released draft IA. The `whole project' should be viewed as one entire documented proiect (e.g. BDCP document, EIR/~IS, and IA) rather than the piece meal approach for best results in relation to CEQA, NEPA, ESA, NCCPA. The draft BDCP document nor the draft IA document provide anv assurance details of ho~v the project, permits, oversight and fiindin~ ~-vill be established ahead of the im~~cts• • Chapter• 7 Implementation Structure T11e chapter and subsequent sections describes a very overarching institutional structure and organizational arrangements for the proposed BDCP with the assignment of the dutiesh~esponsibilities to be figured out over the near term of plan implementation. The section does not Lrovide adequate representation of the Delta (e.~. environmental, eneral public, governments or HCPs/NCCPs) which makes up the impact area. The governance structure limits the regulator~~encies and is 12~Page BDCP Public Review- SJCOG, Inc. essentially allowing the `fox to watch the hen house' «pith very limited ability of the local communities to enact clian~e when needed. The whole governance structure needs to be reconsidered and redesigned to include more local representation of the Delta communities at the table and involvement. It should include 1110Te than inclusion on the `Stakeholder Council'. Also, the re ulatoiy authorities (e.~. USFWS, CDFW, NMFS, ACOE, etc.) should be ~~rovided `Veto' authority within the proposed BDCP ~ovei•nance structure or follo~a~ina Impleme»tation A~reemeilts. Also, oin~ a~encv cannot hilly comment on the draft I3DCP because tl~e important accompanying docwnent of the draft IA to be reviewed in conjtuiction is lacking su~~orting details or renuirements which cause concerns. The a~~pointments are at the discretion of the Natural Resource A ency or the Authorized Entity Group rather than appointment and inclusion of local community stakeholders and other habitat conservation plan t~oups at large. • Chapter 8 Implementation Costs and Funding Sources This chapter and subsequent sections outlines the costs associated with im}~lementatio~l of the proposed BDCP and some components of the plan. The chapter notes the requirements of the proposed BDCP for permits with relation to the ESA and NCCPA to ensure adequate fiuiding to carry out obligations. The proposed BDCP breaks down with the best assumptions possible the related costs and potential fiuiding. The section cannot be commented on Wltl1011t the fielding (COI1St1'L1Ct10ri, implementation, mitigation, restoration, moniroi•ing, etc.) details beingprovided by the draft BDCP sections or draft IA. Neither of the documents have sufficient IIlf01'121c~t1011 OIl BSSUI'eC~ fLlI1C~111 for anZuart of the project, The project proponents have been admitting the repeatedly `the costs of the BDCP is high and there is concern it tivill increase' which is not ~ surprise liven the nature of public works projects over time dui•in~ construction. A lacicin~ and important piece which must accompan any review of the BDCP Implementation and Funding Sources chapter is the draft IA that establishes each proponent's contribution to the project as a whole. The `whole project' aizd especially the costs/fiindin~ should be vie~~ed as one entire doctunented~roject (e.~. BDCP document, EIR/EIS, and IA) with sufficient time provided under CEQA, NEPA,ESA, NCCPA. Otu• staff looks forward to working with the BDCP starf znd consultants on the continued development of the BDCP document, the BDCP final EIR/EIS and the draft IA to insure a greater likelihood that the BDCP and SJMSCP will be complimentar~~ to each other rather than conflicting. Please feel free to contact myself or Steven Mayo, Program Manager, on my staff with any comments, concerns or additional needed information regarding the SJMSCP and the 13~Page QDCP Public Review- SJCOG, Inc. continued work on behalf of the county-wide habitat conservation plan of San Joaquin C011llty. Sincerel , STEVE DIAL Deputy Executive Director /Chief Financial Officer Cc: SJCOG, Inc. Board Josh emery, United States Fish and Wildlife Service Todd Glydner, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Havitat Technicll Advisory Committee(HTAC) ~Z~emvers Kathy I~~iller, City of Stoc] 14~Page BDCP Public Review- SJCOG, Inc. `~~`~ S J C O G, I N C. 555 E. LY/eber•Auenrre • Stockton, California 95202 209.235.0000 209.235.0438 (frrt) turutu.sjcog. nag Steve Drerser CHAIR July 25, 2014 f~17rI)011y Si~UR VICE CHAIN A~rdreru T. LGerlry gDCP Comments raecunv~ o~n~~TOK Ryan Wulff, NMFS MestlierAse~idet 650 Capitol Mall, Suite 5-100 °'TEES °~ CA 95814 PSCALON. Sacramento, I..\YI I RO C. LODI, MANTGC.~, k,~o,,, Re: BDCP Draft Implementation Agreement(IA) Comment Letter Pertaining to STOCKTON. SJMSCP CIIACI', AND THE CO Uh'I'1' OF s.~r ~oAt~uiv Dear Mr. Wulff: SJCOG, Inc. is the administrator of the San loaquiii County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP). Our staff his continuously been involved with the evolution of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (SDCP) since the inception. In addition to this individual comment letter on the BDCP Draft IA, SJCOG, Inc., in conjunction with other Delta Initiative Coalition stakeholders, nlay be submitting a separately transmitted joint corrunent letters. Our agency identified issues in the prior releases of the BDCP draft documents which were again not fully addresseel in those specific BDCP documents (e.g. the BDCP Public Draft, the Draft EIR/EIS or this Draft IA) in relation to those issues. The continued concerns with the BDCP and all the subsequent Draft documents are very similar to those our agency has voiced previously to BDCP staff regarding the overlap of vast tracts of land a►ld species in parts of San Joaquin County covered by the existing county-wide habitat conservation plan. Those concerns are but not limited to: • The unforeseen impacts to the SJMSCP with regards to the federal and state permits being implemented under the existing SJMSCP to balance development and protection of species within San Joaquin County which the BDCP draft EIR/EIS does not frilly addressed. 1~Page BDCP draft IA — SJCOG, Inc. • Certain proposed activities and oversight of the BDCP, such as the types and extent of restoration in the Delta which may have a negative impact on existing preserves and our abilit}~ to acquire firture preserves within San Joaquin County. • The future impacts by the BDCP requiring excessive administrative time and costs to the SJMSCP to provide the vast unount of coordination and information to minimize the potential devastating effects to the existing habitat plan. A fiu•ther concern otu~ staff had after review of the Draft IA is all the Delta counties which have permitted HCPs or are developing HCPs or NCCPs be approved by federal and state regulatory agencies are not being given a fiill voice with the various overlapping areas of the BDCP and existing/potential plans. Focusing on the SJMSCP, the plan area covers approximately one-third of the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta in both the Primary aild Secondary Zones. The SJMSCP is a permitted habitat conservation plan containing existing agreements «pith our federal partners United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and state partners California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) agencies including a very complicated Biological Opinion issued with the tale permits and the SJMSCP Implementation Agreement. These e;cisting agreements are a maior difference between SJMSCP a~1d the others under development. Therefore, the SJMSCI' (and other implementing plans) should be considered an existing condition and included as such as the baseline. The SJMSCP has been diligently fulfilling the terms of the existing SJMSCP Implementation Agreement and issued federal and state take permits by mitigating for development in San Joaquin County tluough acquisition of conservation elsenients and establislunent of habitat preserves under an existing conservation strategy which include areas considered under the proposed Delta Plan and the incorporated BDCP. After numerous hours of analysis of the enormous amotmt of text of the various documents which make up the Draft BDCP, the Draft BDCP EIR/EIS and the Draft IA, our staff continues to have the same concerns previously expressed in our communications to BDCP staff and consultants as well as new concerns from the Draft BDCP, Draft EIR/EIS and Draft IA which need to be addressed/examined/explained more completely. All these concerns are matters which can cause great conflict between the already approved implementing SJMSCP under federal and state tale permits and the proposed developing BDCP. Therefore, SJCOG, Inc. strongly recommends the following be addressed by any subsequent drafts or approved BDCP Implementation Agreement document: 1. The Draft IA in the first paragraph states a `note to reviewers' regarding the "level of agency signatory" under this agreement remains to be determined. This leaves a large void in the purpose of the draft IA. The draft IA is the tie between the various documents, the project, the proponents of the project and the regulatory agencies which will be giving atrtl~ority for impacts of said project. How is this possible to not lcno~v? 2~Page BDCP draft IA — SJCOG, Inc. 2. The Draft IA should provide details of the project (conditions and fiuiding mechanisms for mitigation) and assignments of responsibilities during the various phases of the project (construction, implementation, mitigation, monitoring). The primary reason for the IA would be a solid contract between the project proponents and regulatory agencies as to the process and means for what will be built, how it will be built, funding to assure it can be n~itigatecl fully and assurances of obligations to meet the various federal, state and local ordinances (e.g. NEPA, CEQA,ESA, CESA, etc.). Those details are lacking in the Draft IA. 3. The Draft IA does not provide the needed assurances, details or support the required information as noted in the draft BDCP public document (see chapters 6, 7 and S) which was to be provided in the future IA. The prior drafted material `lciciced the can down the road' with details stating the details would be found in the future IA which is not the case. 4. The Draft IA insufficiencies can lead to compliance issues with the state's Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (NCCPA) and federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) section 10 requirements. In addition, the insufficient draft IA can cause concerns with meeting the obligations under CEQA and NEPA for the project. S. The Draft IA does not provide adequate assurances for the funding of the project ~CO11St1'liCt1011, implementation, mitigation, restoration or monitoring) for meeting the goals and obligations under the state and federal permits. 6. The Draft IA does not contain necessary details or language to support the assertions of meeting the NCCPA, CEQA, ESA, NEPA or any other requirement for projects of this magnitude. 7. The Draft IA shows the flaws with the BDCP's implementation structure with the `Authorized Entity Group'; `Permit Oversight Group'; `Adaptive Management Team'; `Stakeholder Council'; and `Supporting entities' by giving the project proponents(DWR, SWP conri•actors and CVP contractors) equal to that of lead agencies ot1 the state a~ld federal level. There is a lack of any local representation with weight. The Draft IA does not allow for any `checks/balance' or veto allowance by the regulatory agencies providing the take permits as allowed in other habitat plans. Our staff looks forward to working with the BDCP staff and consultants on the continued develo~nlent of the BDCP document and BDCP final EIR/CIS (and draft IA when available) to insure a greater likelihood that the BDCP end SJMSCP will be complimentary to each other rather than conflicting. 3~Page BDCP draft IA — SJCOG, Inc. Please feel free to contact myself or Steven Mayo, Program Manager, on my staff with any comments, concerns or additional needed information regarding the SJMSCP and the continued work on behalf of the cou~~ty-wide habitat plan in San Joaquin County. Sincerel , r STEVE DIAL Deputy Executive Director /Chief Financial Officer Cc: SJCOG, II1C. B011'C~ Josh Emery, United States Fish and Wildlife Service Todd Gardner, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Technical Advisory Committee(HTAC) tneinUers Kathy Miller, City of Stockton Council Member and Delta Coalition Chair 4~Page BDCP draft IA — S1COG, Inc. r ~`'~>~~~ Legend SJMSCP GGS Area KNOWN GGS -White Slough Wildlife Area - DWR KNOWN GGS -Rio Blanc Tract -Delta Island KNOWN GGS -Shin Kee Tract -Delta Island KNOWN GGS -Terminous Tract -Delta Island Additional KNOWN GGS SJCOG_Preserves